If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
... Mxsmanic wrote: Dave S writes: You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the operational requirements of using one. I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the remote transponder. TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. What other ones are there, and how do they work? PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION. I can just see planes falling out of the sky right after reading one of MX's posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a thing is possible. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave S writes: You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the operational requirements of using one. I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the remote transponder. TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. What other ones are there, and how do they work? Andrew.. I'm not doing your homework for you, so that you can then pretend to know what you are talking about. And true TCAS does not need any radar sweeps from ATC to do its job (thats the last freebee to a sim pilot). If you KNEW what the hell you were talking about you would understand why. Again. You dont know. You are guessing. You are giving erroneous advice that potentially can get someone killed if they follow what you are saying as accurate. Does that bother you in the least? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Mike wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Dave S writes: You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the operational requirements of using one. I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the remote transponder. TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. What other ones are there, and how do they work? PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION. I can just see planes falling out of the sky right after reading one of MX's posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a thing is possible. Well, Dave S. sees it as I do. So, you can be concerned about both Dave and me. And, who besides you said the Maniac's posting would immediately cause airplanes to fall out of the sky? You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. And, what a laugh to call that piece of **** game a simulator. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Sam Spade writes:
You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. Nobody learns to fly by reading USENET. No intelligent person ever believes what he reads on USENET without independent verification. And, what a laugh to call that piece of **** game a simulator. Few people with a correctly configured sim call it a game. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Dave S writes:
Andrew.. I'm not doing your homework for you, so that you can then pretend to know what you are talking about. And true TCAS does not need any radar sweeps from ATC to do its job (thats the last freebee to a sim pilot). Nobody said anything about radar sweeps from ATC. Transponders interrogated by TCAS do not provide lateral position information, so this must be inferred by the local TCAS hardware, which in turn implies a sweeping interrogation of some kind that can correlate azimuth information with transponder replies or direct radar echoes. Current TCAS II systems do not provide reliable azimuth information, only general indications of azimuth that can be considerably off. That's one reason why these systems do not provide lateral RAs. Again. You dont know. You are guessing. You are giving erroneous advice that potentially can get someone killed if they follow what you are saying as accurate. No competent pilot takes anything he reads on USENET seriously without independent verification. Indeed, no intelligent person does that. Does that bother you in the least? Since it's your imaginative speculation rather than any kind of real risk, it doesn't bother me. First, the information I give is not generally inaccurate, and it won't get anyone killed. Second, only an idiot flies based on what he reads on USENET alone, and idiots are not likely to survive in any case. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Nobody said anything about radar sweeps from ATC. Yes... YOU did.... ....and idiots are not likely to survive in any case. You've done quite well do far. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Nobody learns to fly by reading USENET. No intelligent person ever believes what he reads on USENET without independent verification. So that somehow is supposed to mean your obnoxious, unwanted, and INCORRECT assertions are welcome? Go back to giving medical advice.. im sure the peeps over in that other usenet village are missing their idiot.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Dave S writes:
So that somehow is supposed to mean your obnoxious, unwanted, and INCORRECT assertions are welcome? Your inference is incorrect. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
Dave S writes:
Yes... YOU did.... Where? TCAS uses at least one directional antenna. It is this antenna that provides azimuth information, independently of any equipment ATC might have. The directional characteristic required for the antenna provides very low azimuth resolution, which means that bearing information on the TCAS display is only approximately accurate, unless the equipment substantially exceeds the minimum requirements for the system. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
contact terminology?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
... Mike wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Dave S writes: You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the operational requirements of using one. I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the remote transponder. TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. What other ones are there, and how do they work? PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION. I can just see planes falling out of the sky right after reading one of MX's posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a thing is possible. Well, Dave S. sees it as I do. And in this particular thread, MX was right and Dave S had to manufacture a non-existent quote just to contradict MX and point out that he wasn't some sort of design engineer when clearly he isn't either. So, you can be concerned about both Dave and me. And, who besides you said the Maniac's posting would immediately cause airplanes to fall out of the sky? Because you described him as not just a hazard, but a "GENUINE" hazard with caps added for emphasis on everything. What other inference should one make from that? Are you now going to try and downplay what you were previously so adamant about before? The best you can say about your statement is you grossly exaggerated any threat he might pose and the worst you could say about mine is I just took your exaggeration one more step to show how completely ridiculous it was. You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. Here's what you don't understand. After reading one or two sentences of an MX post, anyone with at least a room temperature IQ should be able to figure out the guy is completely clueless. Now let's assume for a moment they aren't that smart, but still have enough neurons firing to fly an actual aircraft even as a student pilot (which is quite a stretch to begin with, but lets go way out on a limb for the sake of argument). If they choose to base their decision making skills on what a person with no proven credentials whatsoever writes on friggin usenet, then they have FAR bigger problems than MX could ever create. In fact, their chain is made of dental floss to begin with. And, what a laugh to call that piece of **** game a simulator. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Traffic/Pilot Terminology | [email protected] | Piloting | 32 | July 24th 07 10:25 AM |
VFR terminology in Class B | Matt | Piloting | 17 | February 27th 07 03:55 PM |
Pressure Altitude and Terminology | Icebound | Piloting | 0 | November 27th 04 09:14 PM |
New Aviation Terminology | DeltaDeltaDelta | Piloting | 45 | December 4th 03 08:31 AM |
Humour: CO DATA PAGE TERMINOLOGY CAT:BTN SUB:DES PGE:TRM | Dave Kearton | Military Aviation | 0 | September 24th 03 10:38 AM |